The Gift of Speech

[Gurthang]

My sister is reading The Hobbit for the first time, and I happened to walk in and ask what part she was on. After she told me, I exclaimed that she was already past Smaug's demise. I was thinking of that scene, and asked her if the arrow had spoken. I didn't think it had, but I quickly checked anyway. Nope, no talking arrow, just Bard talking to it. I did note however, that the thrush had spoken to Bard.

Now, the thrush talking, and the old raven speaking as well, is not too far fetched, since birds like parrots and crows can talk a little. But as I was thinking about Bard and his arrow, a thought occured to me.

Why was the black sword, Gurthang, able to speak?

Most of Tolkien's writings, although fantasy, follow the general laws of nature as our own world. So why would he give a voice to an inanimate object like a sword. It makes for a good story, but almost feels out of place.

[Rilwen Gamgee]

This is just an obsevation, and I am sorry of this does not answer your question, but perhaps this also applies to Sting's properties; it has the ability to glow. Why is that? Most likely for the same reason that Gurthang speaks.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

. . . just a cross-reference.)

Talking Swords by Thingol

Hey, the Ring has a will of its own, despite it being an inanimate object. But perhaps it's due to Sauron's power poured on it . . .

Wait a minute. The Ring also spoke on Mt. Doom (q.v.), and coincidentally, both objects spoke on their "deathbeds". Perhaps objects with their own wills could "speak" (project their thoughts) as some sort of farewell. Why? I dunno.

[Gurthang]

It would make sense that whoever made the object would have put some of their own power into it. At least in the case of the Ring, and so maybe Gurthang, too. Maybe it depended on who made them or where they were made. The great hound, Huan, came from Valinor and was allowed to speak three times.

[Morsul the Dark]

well I think It is a matter of when Tolkien wrote his books. The Hobbit and the lost tales delve much more into fantasy than LOTR does when you think about LOTR besides eagles being huge and the fell creatures and the ring the book is basicly realistic while the hobbit is much less serious and more focused on fantasy dragons and d talking birds( yes I remember Gwaihir but Gandalf is a maiar therefore has the power to talk with natural beasts perhaps if gwaihir apporached the hobbits they wouldn't understand him.) so the first few ages are much more fantasy than LOTR. Also maybe the sword didn't talk the weilder just enjoyed his pipeweed a tad too much

[burrahobbit]

Most of the really outlandish stuff in The Hobbit comes from Blbo's fevered imagination. The things in the other books???

[Kuruharan]

It is kind of interesting to ask, "How did anyone know that Gurthang spoke? Nobody else was there at the time."

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Turin was a suicidal wreck. Bear that in mind.

[Mithalwen]

I think that is the truth of it, Eomer. I guess that these instances are a projection of the psyche of Turin and Sam.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Sam?

[Mithalwen]

Click on the qv link... article about the ring "speaking"

[The Saucepan Man]

Um, in a world where we have Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Trolls, Dragons and walking talking trees, is it really too far-fetched to believe in talking swords?

The Barrow-Wights were dead creatures inhabited by houseless spirits. And I believe that Tolkien, in one of the HoME volumes, talks of disembodied spirits seeking to gain control over the bodies of the living.

Is it not possible that Eol learned the craft of infusing inanimate objects with houseless spirits? Or perhaps such a spirit simply decided to house itself in a sword of its own accord. Given that a spirit can exist independently of a physical body, there is no reason why it should necessarily require an organic body.

As for the Ring, it contained part of Sauron's will.

Given that telepathy was used in Middle-earth, in Elvish Osanwe for example, I see no reason why possessed objects should not be able to 'speak' even without the physical apparatus to do so.

[Mithalwen]

Perhaps not in general - but for me specifically maybe... my reply was intended as a personal response not a definitive statement. Mabe it is my increasing cynicism or a fascination with psychology that leads me to prefer this scenario - especially in the case of Turin. Nevertheless I have always found this one of the most powerful moments in the opus - and one of the most memorable - even though I don't feel it was literally the sword speaking.

[mark12_30]

"Only I hear the stones lament them: 'Deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us, but they are gone.' They are gone. They sought the havens long ago."

Are we accusing Legolas of a fevered imagination here? I'll buy Saucie's argument rather.

[burrahobbit]

Poetic and fevered are a bit different.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Perhaps not in general - but for me specifically maybe... I don't feel it was literally the sword speaking.

This is redolent of an argument that I have seen put forward to the effect that parts of The Hobbit (Stone Giants for example) were the result of Bilbo's over-active imagination.

What I don't understand is how proponents of this perspective can, in the context of a fantasy novel, accept that certain fantasy elements exist while needing to find a 'real life' explanation for others.

It's a fantasy world ...

[Mithalwen]

I would not put it as strongly as a fevered imagination - more a knowledge of the history of the place and a sensitivity to it . But if I think that the stones were speaking then I would say no. But this is my feeling .... I don't think it is a "right or wrong" issue. Just a question of how far you suspend your disbelief.

[Mithalwen]

This was a cross post but I think it still holds. And I am not arguing anything as such just saying my feeling about it - I an not forcing anyone to agree with it. But sice I am attacked for illogicality, I would say that , as someone who in general does not read fantasy books other than LOTR (and Pratchett though I see him more as a socio-political commentator who happens to use a created world for his setting cf Butler and Erewhon), one of the reasons that I love Middle Earth is that it is that Tolkien strived to make it coherent and to reconcile anomalies in the creation, eg Glorfindel. I suppose I prefer the explanations that gel with the "laws" of the created universe rather than say "it is fantasy, roll with it" . Also I feel that there is a sense in which the Silmarillion tales are "mythicised" and the Hobbit is "fairytale" whereas LOTR is history/documentary........... OK I am illogical ignore me....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But sice I am attacked for illogicality ...

Oh, but I'm not attacking you, Mithalwen. And I am the first to defend people's rights to their opinions (well, most opinions anyway). I am simply trying to understand your position, which I must admit to finding somewhat illogical. It seems to me that if one starts to question the veracity of matters that are presented as facts in a fantasy tale, then the question arises: where do you draw the line?

Taken to its extreme, this approach would have us dismissing both The Hobbit and LotR as the crazed ramblings of a few insane Hobbits. But then Hobbits are fantasy creatures, so where would that leave us ...?

I suppose I prefer the explanations that gel with the "laws" of the created universe rather than say "it is fantasy, roll with it" .

Well, I did offer some explanations that I feel work within the context of the world presented to us by Tolkien.

Also I feel that there is a sense in which the Silmarillion tales are "mythicised" and the Hobbit is "fairytale" whereas LOTR is history/documentary...

I can understand that as a reaction to their differing styles. But all three books are set in the same world, and they are very much inter-connected, particularly The Hobbit and LotR but also the Silm with both of them. So I do feel that, if one is to be treated as presenting the 'facts' about a particular period in Middle-earth's history, then the others should (in the absence of any inconsistencies) be treated in similar fashion.

Ulp! This is beginning to sound too much like an entry on the dreaded C-thread. I'd best stop before any of the other regulars catch on.

[burrahobbit]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

The Hobbit and LotR but also the Silm with both of them. So I do feel that, if one is to be treated as presenting the 'facts' about a particular period in Middle-earth's history, then the others should (in the absence of any inconsistencies) be treated in similar fashion.

Truly, but there do seem to be certain inconsistencies, in relation to each other and with the Real World that they are explicitly set in, though in a fictional and more magical time period. In the real Real World swords don't talk. How can the two be reconciled? The certain strived for "realness" and the pure fantasy of talking things? A reasonable idea or two has come up in the topic (houseless spirits) but there are some others that could be put forward (see THE DRUEDAIN in UT).

noncomprehensive list of Things that talked:
eagles
thrush
gurthang
Ring
spiders
fox (thought)
trolls
William's purse
orcs

You may think that orcs is a strange addition to that list, but it goes right to the point of the topic. What is it that let's a Thing talk?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Boroughobbit ;)

In the real Real World swords don't talk.

No, but cars do.

What is it that let's a Thing talk?

But we must first establish the nature of the Thing. Does it have sentience or is it a mere automaton programmed to respond in a certain way in specified circumstance (like a computer)?

I would regard Aghan's Faithful Stone (and William Huggins' purse for that matter) as falling in the latter category. But Gurthang appears to display a sentience that is independent of the one who made it.

The again, perhaps Eol had developed the craft of creating Artificial Intelligence.

[Turin]

Gurthang doesn't talk. Turin, or rather Tolkien through Turin, is projecting his other, conflicting personal torments: In his despair he justifies his imminent act (of suicide) by focusing on all the ill-things that he had done with ihis sword i.e. accidently killing Beleg, Brandir etc etc.

Not many animals do talk in the books. The Eagles of Manwe had been blessed by him and were a special case - their unusual size, for example. In the First Age they provide a valuable function for the Valar to keep an eye on Morgoth (Thorondor et al are an ominous sign to Morgoth that the Valar have not completely forsakened Beleriand).

Gwahir is descended from this special race and possesses, therefore, some of their unique characteristics.

Many lesser Maiar are said to have inhabited animal forms in Valinor. It is perfectly plausible to suppose animals could be given a "spirit" by those powerful enough to do so. The Thrush is said to be descended from a family of talking thrushes, they must have been endowed with their talking trait through unrecorded History.

My other guess is that Radaghast had some influence on using some animals for good (remembering that the Istari had been in ME for over 2 thousand years). He may have imparted (acting as an agent) some of his maiaric spirit into certain animals for some (mostly) unknown purpose.

There are tantalizing enigmas that Tolkien leaves for us to make our own mind up about.

[Aiwendil]

Gurthang doesn't talk. Turin, or rather Tolkien through Turin, is projecting his other, conflicting personal torments: In his despair he justifies his imminent act (of suicide) by focusing on all the ill-things that he had done with ihis sword i.e. accidently killing Beleg, Brandir etc etc.

That's certainly a valid interpretation, but I wouldn't state it as a simple fact. There is something to be said for taking the text at face value as well.

[A_Brandybuck]

At first I want to say hello to you all here, because it is my first post in this forum.
Now, to the topic...

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Is it not possible that Eol learned the craft of infusing inanimate objects with houseless spirits? Or perhaps such a spirit simply decided to house itself in a sword of its own accord. Given that a spirit can exist independently of a physical body, there is no reason why it should necessarily require an organic body.

We have here two cases, which are possible.
1) Turin has mentioned, that Gurthang didn't talk. All happened in Turambars brain. But we don't know it for sure, Tolkien never said that directly. But this is possible, especially from the psychologic point and the mental confusion in which Turambar is situated.

2) The sword came orginally from Eol, who forged it from a fallen meteorite. I remember darkly, that Melian (?) said to Turin, that the dark heart of that dark elf has lived in the sword. So it is possible, that Eol forged in a way that something of his 'spirit' came into this sword. Or the metal of the fallen meteorite has some special attributes, so that the sword have an inherent power after being forged and is indeed in a way similar to the one ring, but with less power.
There are many details, which could be the cause of the innate power of the sword: Eol's abilities to forge, the special metal or the dark soul of Eol.
Maybe the curse of Morgoth played a rol in that story.

IMHO the sword didn't really physically speak. But Turambar heard something in his mind. But I don't think, that this was only a product of his mind. The sword was in a way the cause, that all the ill-things came into his mind. With a normal sword, he hadn't had this 'bout'. Only my meaning.

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, Turin and A_Brandybuck I hope that you enjoy yourselves here.

My goodness, there seems to me to be a good deal of scepticism concerning the talkative nature of Turin's sword. Now, I am a very sceptical person when it comes to unexplained phenomena in real life, but (absent the ludicrous) I am quite happy to suspend that scepticism when I read a fantasy novel which contains elements of faerie, mythology and legend.

Can anyone offer a plausible explanation as to why Gurthang could not, or should not, have talked?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I understand your point Saucepan (at least I hope I do) but for me this is not really a case of Gurthang being able to talk. I understand that odd things happen in the course of the stories. I merely believe that Gurthang did not talk, and that the scenario was a nigh-on perfect manifestation of Turin's fragile state of mind.

[mark12_30]

From The Ring Goes South:

.

.. said Gandalf. ‘... There is a wholesome air about Hollin. Much evil must befall a country before it wholly forgets the Elves, if once they dwelt there.’
‘That is true,’ said Legolas. ‘But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them: Only I hear the stones lament them: deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone. They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago.’

From Treebeard:

'But some of my trees are limb-lithe, and many can talk to me. Elves began it, of course, waking trees up and teaching them to speak and learning their tree-talk. They always wished to talk to everything, the old Elves did. '

The White Rider:

There I lay staring upward, while the stars wheeled over, and each day was as long as a life-age of the earth. Faint to my ears came the gathered rumour of all lands: the springing and the dying, the song and the weeping, and the slow everlasting groan of overburdened stone.

From The Tower of Cirith Ungol:

'‘Come on, you miserable sluggard!’ Sam cried to himself. ‘Now for it!’ He drew Sting and ran towards the open gate. But just as he was about to pass under its great arch he felt a shock: as if he had run into some web like Shelob’s, only invisible. He could see no obstacle, but something too strong for his will to overcome barred the way. He looked about, and then within the shadow of the gate he saw the Two Watchers.
They were like great figures seated upon thrones. Each had three joined bodies, and three heads facing outward, and inward, and across the gateway. The heads had vulture-faces, and on their great knees were laid clawlike hands. They seemed to be carved out of huge blocks of stone, immovable, and yet they were aware: some dreadful spirit of evil vigilance abode in them. They knew an enemy. Visible or invisible none could pass unheeded. They would forbid his entry, or his escape.
Hardening his will Sam thrust forward once again, and halted with a jerk, staggering as if from a blow upon his breast and head. Then greatly daring, because he could think of nothing else to do, answering a sudden thought that came to him, he drew slowly out the phial of Galadriel and held it up. Its white light quickened swiftly, and the shadows under the dark arch fled. The monstrous Watchers sat there cold and still, revealed in all their hideous shape. For a moment Sam caught a glitter in the black stones of their eyes, the very malice of which made him quail; but slowly he felt their will waver and crumble into fear.
He sprang past them; but even as he did so, thrusting the phial back into his bosom, he was aware, as plainly as if a bar of steel had snapped to behind him, that their vigilance was renewed. And from those evil heads there came a high shrill cry that echoed in the towering walls before him.

[Mithalwen]

Not sure if this is a good moment to explain my rationality since I have been demented most of the day. I am not saying that a talking sword is impossible but I still think that given the state of Turin's mind the aural hallucination is not a peverse reading. It is not to be sure an issue that costs me any sleep. I don't think it devalues tolkien's imagination. I don't actually ever think of Tolkien's work as Fantasy. To me it is a fictional reality. And particularly in the Silmarillion the characters have a psychological depth which is sometimes lacking in the plot driven LOTR and hobbit. The events of the Silmarillion are so often character driven and so the mind set of the characters cannot be disregarded.

To clarify my differentiation of the three main works I would say that it is not that I regard the LOTR as being more true or accurate per se but say if LOTR is the Red Book of Westmarch it is presented as a book written and collated as very recent history, The Silmarillion would be Bilbo's translations from the Elvish and the Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo's adventures, andwe know that he economised with the truth about them..... if we have to accept them as "fact" in the same way as the LOTR then it means that most Elves of Rivendell metamorphasised in fifty years from being insanely camp and inane beings tralalalallying in their valley to being founts of nobility and wisdom (though not entirely uncamp). As for "translations" - well if only Elrond remains even at RIvendell who knows all the old lore correctly, must we take Bilbo's versions as Gospel? Although that is perhaps not the best choice of phrase since I don't take every word of the Bible as "gospell" and it didn't stop me being a Christian for many years - my lapse was entirely unrelated to cynicism about miracles.

I don't think it denigrates the immensity of Tolkien's creation to apply judgments about documentary sources that I would apply in the "real" world - in fact maybe it shows its strength.

[mark12_30]

The Silmarillion would be Bilbo's translations from the Elvish and the Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo's adventures, andwe know that he economised with the truth about them..... if we have to accept them as "fact" in the same way as the LOTR then it means that most Elves of Rivendell metamorphasised in fifty years from being insanely camp and inane beings tralalalallying in their valley to being founts of nobility and wisdom (though not entirely uncamp). As for "translations" - well if only Elrond remains even at RIvendell who knows all the old lore correctly,

Regarding tralalalallying: I do not think that the average elf was too stuck up for silliness. I think they were as changeable in their emotions as other folk; profound and merry, serious and silly. Recall Sam's opinion of Galadriel: "But I wish I could make a song about her. Beautiful she is, sir! Lovely! Sometimes like a great tree in flower, sometimes like a white daffadowndilly, small and slender like. Hard as di’monds, soft as moonlight. Warm as sunlight, cold as frost in the stars. Proud and far-off as a snow-mountain, and as merry as any lass I ever saw with daisies in her hair in springtime."

LOTR is written by Frodo back in the Shire, and I'm not surprised he remembered the uber-serious side of the elves, since he knew he'd be sailing west. Bilbo was a more relaxed sort, who enjoyed a good laugh. Frodo wrote about the Hall of Fire and songs to Elbereth; Bilbo wrote about dancing by the riverside on Midsummer's Eve.

Fordim Hedgethistle can be, and often is, quite profound. But he's not above throwing a gauntlet and being downright silly in the process. If he were unable to take himself lightly on occasion, I would be less likely to take him seriously the rest of the time.

Professor Tolkien could jest with his children, philosophize with other professors, drink beer while studying myths, and publish satires on old nursery rhymes. Judging by his own letters, he tried hard not to take himself too seriously. He wrote stories about the creation of the world, and he wrote stories about toy dogs lost at the beach. THe same guy that wrote The Lay of Leithan wrote Bombadil goes Boating.

Why are we so sure that Elrond wouldn't have joined in a round of Tralalalally? I'm not. I think he would have enjoyed it, taking a break from all the weightier matters.

Translations: "if only Elrond remains even at RIvendell who knows all the old lore correctly"-- where do you find this? Glorfindel doesn't count? And with all the travel Arwen does between Rivendell and Lorien, wouldn't she get the stories straight? Her grandmother knew them all, I'm sure.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Gurthang doesn't talk. Turin, or rather Tolkien through Turin, is projecting his other, conflicting personal torments: In his despair he justifies his imminent act (of suicide) by focusing on all the ill-things that he had done with ihis sword i.e. accidently killing Beleg, Brandir etc etc. (Turin)

But as Thingol turned the hilt of Anglachel toward Beleg, Melian looked at the blade; and she said: "There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves, neither will it abide with you long."

TS 21

I believe it may have spoken, but not in the way normal people understand "speaking". Near the end of the Third Age the Ring may have spoken to Sam (see link above), although I think it was actually Frodo's voice being used by the Ring. But the Ring, an inanimate object, managed to project its thoughts.

Sure, Gurthang/Anglachel might not be as powerful as the One, but it still has a will. The hate of its maker perhaps flowed to it. Perhaps it even influenced Túrin to cause the downfall of Nargothrond (pure speculation).

If it could do that, surely projecting a "Yes, I will kill you" thought to someone is a piece of cake.

Besides, if Tolkien was just using the sword as an object for Túrin to "blame", why would he make Melian see the innate malice of the sword? Doesn't that add a loose thread to Vairë's (history's) otherwise smooth tapestry?

(NOTE: I begin to see an echo of the "Do Balrogs have wings?" debate. )

[Kuruharan]

Besides, if Tolkien was just using the sword as an object for Túrin to "blame", why would he make Melian see the innate malice of the sword?

Perhaps, since she had some degree of foresight, she was giving a sort of prophetic warning of his fate?

(You know how it is a requirement of the Prophet's Guild to speak about something by talking about something else entirely.)

[Lush]

Also, you have to remember the symbolic nature of swords, the way the often serve as an extension of their owner's character, personality, or, um, manhood...

Tee hee.

Seriously though, men and their swords have complicated relationships that can easily justify all sorts of speeches and conversations.

[the phantom]

if only Elrond remains even at RIvendell who knows all the old lore correctly

where do you find this? Glorfindel doesn't count? And with all the travel Arwen does between Rivendell and Lorien, wouldn't she get the stories straight? Her grandmother knew them all, I'm sure.

Glor, Arwen, and Galadriel knew everything Elrond did?

Wrong.

There were most definitely things that only Elrond knew or remembered accurately. From FOTR, The Council of Elrond-

Then all listened while Elrond in his clear voice spoke of Sauron and the Rings of Power, and their forging in the Second Age of the world long ago. A part of this tale was known to some there, but the full tale to none...

Glorfindel and Erestor were present and they didn't know. Hey, even Gandalf was there and he didn't know the full tale.

Then there's this from FOTR, A Knife In the Dark-

'I will tell you the tale of Tinuviel,' said Strider, 'in brief- for it is a long tale of which the end is not known; and there are none now, except Elrond, that remember it aright as it was told of old.'

And also, from appendix A-

When the kingdom ended the Dunedain passed into the shadows and became a secret and wandering people, and their deeds and labours were seldom sung or recorded. Little now is remembered of them since Elrond departed.

[mark12_30]

The point being referred to was not The Tale of the Ring-- for one thing, Galadriel wasn't in the battle of the Last Alliance, and Elrond was, so of course there would be eyewitness things that no-one but he would know, and possibly also he would not have revealed until the tactical situation made it neccessary.

Also regarding the Dunedain-- I can easily believe that there were sme things that only Elrond knew about them as well.

However, those are not the tales that are in question when we are referring to The Silmarillion, which (as we have it) is Translations From the Elvish by B. Baggins. The implication above was that only Elrond knew the stories contained in the Silmarillion, and by the time that Bilbo wrote them down, they were fraught with error syuch as Turin's talking sword.

However, this is illogical. Bilbo presented Frodo with his three-volume set as Frodo departed Rivendell just after the Ring was destroyed. Elrond was still at Rivendell. So was Glorfindel. So were many other elves. The tales were well-known: Valaquenta, Ainulindale; Beren & Luthien, Turin Turmambar, Alkallabeth. The implication there is that Bilbo wrote his translations while there were plenty of folk around him to check his accuracy. Chalking Turin's talking sword up to Bilbo's wild imagination is taking Bilbo's scholarship in to serious question-- why would he invent such a thing when he knew his volumes would be around for quite a while? And why would Bilbo assume that after he gave the books to Frodo, no-one familiar with the original tales would have access to them? On the contrary, Sam had contact with Aragorn and Arwen long after Frodo and Bilbo had departed.

Again, I am not saying that everyone else knew everything that Elrond knew. But in terms of the five tales listed above, I would be astonished if Elrond was the only person that knew the tale well enough to pass it on to Bilbo. I would also be astonished if Bilbo's three-volume set went unread by any knowledgable elf thereafter.

[A_Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

However, those are not the tales that are in question when we are referring to The Silmarillion, which (as we have it) is Translations From the Elvish by B. Baggins. The implication above was that only Elrond knew the stories contained in the Silmarillion, and by the time that Bilbo wrote them down, they were fraught with error syuch as Turin's talking sword.

However, this is illogical. Bilbo presented Frodo with his three-volume set as Frodo departed Rivendell just after the Ring was destroyed. Elrond was still at Rivendell. So was Glorfindel. So were many other elves. The tales were well-known: Valaquenta, Ainulindale; Beren & Luthien, Turin Turmambar, Alkallabeth. The implication there is that Bilbo wrote his translations while there were plenty of folk around him to check his accuracy. Chalking Turin's talking sword up to Bilbo's wild imagination is taking Bilbo's scholarship in to serious question-- why would he invent such a thing when he knew his volumes would be around for quite a while?

Bilbo had not to invent details of the story. It seems clear (because of your argumentation), that he wrote the things down, which he had heart from the Elves of Rivendell. But the Elves of Rivendell? Where do they know the details of Turin's last minutes. It could be, that they have made sense of the end of the story of Turin Turambar. Noone was there in Turin's last minutes. Mablung came too late. He saw Turin when he was already dead.

The Silmarillion (and the other works of Tolkien) wasn't written by an omniscient narrator, so the last minutes of Turin are open for speculation. Mablung saw the scenery of his suicide. His sword was broken and before Turin was leaving him, he had been in a unstable status (mental).
The story of the speaking sword could come from the sentence of Melian, that the dark heart of Eol had lived in the sword.

The consequence of these circumstances could create the menaing, that the sword has spoken. A rumour, that outlives thousands of years.

[Gurthang]

If you're asking the question of 'did the sword talk or not', you would have to say that Tolkien made an error in his writings. It says that it did, and I for one take that at face value that the sword actually spoke. I'm not saying that you should take everything completely literally, but in this case I do. I don't think that the tale is a rumor, or else it wouldn't be there at all.

And why shouldn't it talk? Eru could do anything he wanted, so he could let a sword speak. After all, Huan spoke, and no dog that I know has done that. There's even a story in the Bible where a donkey speaks to Balaam. (Numbers 22:30) So I say, why couldn't the sword have spoken.

Now as to why it did. It seems that Tokien used different resources to provide useful information. In this case, he used Gurthang to show why Turin deserved to die. It would have been kinda pathetic for Turin to say "Oh, I killed Beleg and Brandir, so I should kill myself." It sounds much better if someone else tells him so. There was no one around, so the sword conveyed this message to him. It's there to add to the story, not make it unbelieveable.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It is perhaps more conceivable to imagine a dog with the capacity to speak, what with his anatomy, than a sword.

[Mithalwen]

Oh deary, deary me , can open worms everywhere..

If I thought for a moment, that the "Round the Horne" extra- type elves ("I'm Glorfindel and this is my friend Lindor") were a serious depiction of the Noldor at play I would eat HoME. If I thought Elrond sat in a tree singing Tra-lalally, I would munch my way through my equally treasured copy of the BBC dramatisation. The Phantom correctly identifies instances I was thinking of. And there was a crucial "if" in my statement ..... but if we have to accept everything at "face value" then it must be equally illogical to doubt the words of Aragorn at Weathertop and the narrator (Tolkien?) at the council of Elrond, that Elrond was the only one. Just becasue you live though something- it doesn't mean you know the facts - and Glorfindel spent a long time dead .

Tales do change in the telling, Elves do forget, millenia have passed since events noone actually witnessed took place.... every story anyone tells is selective, newspapers daily make gross errors of fact (as you discover if they ever write a story about anything you actually KNOW about). And I repeat, I never said that a talking sword was impossible.

[HerenIstarion]

Frodo or the Ring by Mithadan

[Neithan]

I have been wanting to give my theories on talking objects and rather than starting a new thread I decided to add to this one.

.. said Gandalf. ‘... There is a wholesome air about Hollin. Much evil must befall a country before it wholly forgets the Elves, if once they dwelt there.’
‘That is true,’ said Legolas. ‘But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them: Only I hear the stones lament them: deep they delved us, fair they wrought us, high they builded us; but they are gone. They are gone. They sought the Havens long ago.’

The world was shaped by the Valar and the Maiar and their power remains within it, and at the heart of the world is set the Flame Imperishable. Animals and even plants talk in the stories, and I think that some form of consciousness remained in the inanimate objects of the world. These objects could not speak with words ( notice that Legolas is not quoting the stones, for there are no quotation marks), but the people of Middle Earth could sense their "thoughts" or feelings so to speak. Some races seemed much more adept at this than others, Elves in particular, and Men perhaps the least.

"And from the blade rang a cold voice in answer. Yea, I will drink thy blood gladly,that so I may forget the blood of Beleg my master, and the blood of Brandir slain unjustly. I will slay thee swiftly."

Well first we have to consider the quote from Melian,

But as Thingol turned the hilt of Anglachel towards Beleg, Melian looked at the blade; and she said: 'There is malice in this sword. The dark heart of the smith still dwells in it. It will not love the hand it serves; neither will it abide with you long.'

When someone creates something they often put some of their power into it: rings of power, Morgoth's power going into his servants, and so on. So you can see how the makers will could live on in the "thoughts" of the sword, and it did not have to be actual words, Túrin could be "sensing" as I mentioned above.